You don't NEED a special number for everyone, you just need to test mental/physical function, not blood alcohol. For example, I have seen portable machines that can measure reaction time. With proper studies, you can determine a reasonable reaction time threshold for what is not dangerous and use THAT instead.
Blood alcohol limits are pretty much nonsense. There are TONS of factors that will affect how intoxicated or not a driver is under the influence of the drug: How quickly they drank, what they ate, how accustomed to the drug are they, how much they weigh, genetics, mental state, what other chemicals have they ingested and how much/when, how tired they are, etc.
It is just crazy to think that anyone can draw a line in the sand and declare that some magic value separates "intoxicated" from "non-intoxicated". It really shouldn't matter WHAT substance was ingested, or how much, or even if anything was. What matters is mental ability, reaction time, motor control, etc. Those can also be tested (and even objectively) and will reveal a whole lot more about how fit someone is to be driving.
Example- which would you rather be surrounded by on the road: some 300 pound males who drink daily for years and have a blood alcohol of 0.8 but is otherwise well rested, generally a good driver, and taking no other drugs or medications -or- some a group of people that were already poor drivers, have colds, are extremely tired, and have taken a bunch of cough meds and antihistamines?
>"new study, which finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers who are nearly as prone to crash with or without the device."
That partially doesn't surprise me. Typically, the same people that would allow themselves to be distracted by a phone or texting are going to be the same people that will allow themselves to be distracted by the radio, GPS, passenger, makeup, food, random thoughts, whatever. Conversely, there are people who tend to not allow distractions or are better able to ignore or cope with them. They might RELUCTANTLY use a phone while driving but don't allow the phone to be the primary focus and are FAR less distracted than others.
Just my observation, but it certainly looks like younger generations are growing up with less and less ability to focus, almost like ADD is rampant. Could be a side effect of having instant everything in their life and have no tolerance for having to work at something, concentrate on something, or be "disconnected" from others.
All that aside, I am not sure the methodology of the cited study is very scientific. For example- just ASKING people how often they use a phone while driving- yeah, that will be accurate. Anyway, there is no simple solution to the problem of distracted driving. Just banning phone use is not the answer. I don't know what the answer is, or if there is one... but it is certainly not going to be one thing.
More than they "should" be paying? How much more than OEM's "should" individuals building their own computer have to pay for MS-Windows? Why should they have to pay more at all?
If you buy the OEM license from the same vendor and at the same time you are buying the major parts for a machine you are building, I believe that is perfectly within the terms of at least the MS-Windows XP OEM license (I read it).
I would not block any ads at all if they were static images. But they almost never are. And I CAN NOT STAND trying to look at the screen or read something while there is ANY type of movement or animation at the same time. It is just too distracting. So, greed has done them in.
I won't even mention crap like hyper mouse-overs, SOUND, and other extremely annoying "features" because just the animation is enough.
Agreed. We see VNC port probing all the time. This is why we do not leave the server code running (as a service). If someone needs remote assistance, they launch the vnc server and it will wait for about 30 seconds for a connection before it gives up and dies.
Parent is over-rated. Exactly how is VNC "notoriously insecure"? Because it is not encrypted? Do you really think someone is going to intercept the screen drawing compressed bitmap traffic during some ad-hoc session? And what exactly will they get? A temporary visual of someone's screen?
Security really depends on how it is all implemented. I typically set it up so the person on the other end has to launch the VNC server, it has a strong password (which is not the same as any user), and it will only allow a connection for about 30 seconds before closing down.
Women trick men into having children without men's consent ALL THE TIME, throughout history.
I think there is a smaller risk of men trying to trick or just lie to women about being "on the pill." There are two main motivations for women to lie about being on the pill- to try to get pregnant without permission, or to avoid the use of condoms because either she doesn't like them or she knows/believes he doesn't. For men, usually only the latter would apply.
As far as having more options that do not address STD's- yes, it is a good idea. More options are ALWAYS better. There probably aren't going to BE any more options that can block STD's AND pregnancy- only condoms (or abstinence).
+1 on your post. It is just as important for men to have control over reproduction- modern society demands they are 50% liable for children (with which I do agree).
I would only add that there should also be no financial rewards to women having children, making sure it is the CHILDREN that are wanted, not the money from the government (yes, this is a big problem with certain socioeconomic populations).
It is obviously speculation and I didn't claim otherwise. But if you think it is wrong, you are welcome to provide a counter speculation or perhaps even a "source".
Indeed there are legit uses for torrents. But if you add it all up, I bet 99.5+% of torrent traffic is the [illegal] exchange of copyrighted, commercial video, music, and software (and in that order, by volume).
Exactly. I was going to post the exact same thing. Too bad I don't have mod points right now.
I find it very ironic that BitTorrent Inc wants to make money using ads off essentially being an illegal distributor of mostly copyrighted content to those mostly illegally downloading copyrighted content, much of which are shows in which ads have been stripped out of them.
We have been using it to run a gift shop for many years (in USA), including ordering, invoicing, inventory management, accounting, sales, and the register.... and all under Linux.
It is not free, but it is multiplatform, GUI, affordable, and source is available. It used to be mostly open source, but they couldn't make the model work.
But isn't DRM expected on the Ouya? Would rooting break that and prevent use of the Ouya marketplace? Won't rooting throw away the warranty and support like it does with pretty much all other Android devices? If it is easy to add Google Play on the device, then why doesn't it just come with it?
If it had access to Google Play Store *AND* another market for even more souped-up games (or even some exclusive stuff) it would be irresistible. But from everything I have seen/heard so far, it will probably be limited to some proprietary marketplace with much less selection and potentially much higher priced stuff.
You might ask what is the point for full Google Play Store access? These:
1) There are countless thousands of games, right off the bat 2) There are countless thousands of LOW PRICED games 3) There are many thousands of FREE games 4) Anything YOU ALREADY PAID FOR on Play will run on the Ouya too 5) You might want access to some apps that are not games 6) You might want to do all this in the comfort of your chair, using a great controller, a great sound system, and a great display
Without full Google Play Store (or maybe even Amazon Marketplace) support, I don't expect this thing to be anywhere NEAR as attractive as it would be with it.
Also quite possible it won't have analog sound out, making it not possible (or difficult and expensive) to connect many people's audio/visual systems.
But there are more problems than just "resources". Unless they can totally change human nature- we also need *SPACE* to prevent conflict. Personally, I also need QUIET!
Compared to other OPEN SOURCE, MULTIPLATFORM browsers (to me, there is no point in comparing to IE, which is neither open nor multiplatform). Firefox is-
Most annoying: * Trying to hide everything all the time. * Adding unnecessary crap all the time. Things that should be in addons. Example- the annoying new "blank page" helper. Goes completely against the foundations of Firefox. * Changing long-held defaults. For example, turning on smooth scrolling, changing to "tabs on top". STOP TRYING TO LOOK LIKE CHROME. * Still using too much memory. I know there are studies that show it is both less and that it is more than other browsers, but damn it still seems like a lot.
Most gratifying: * Most like what I am used to. * Less likely to have spyware/trackware and Google hooks in it. * About:config has LOTS of options. I like having options (although more stuff should be in Preferences). * Best Addon environment, period.
Most important feature request: * Give users intelligent control over javascript to lessen or prevent animation and tight-loops. Sites have already started to destroy sane browsing behavior, put up lots of distracting s*** on the screen constantly, and eat up tons of CPU and battery. No addon is really able to address this, unless you spent forever trying to tweak for each site (and constantly update it)- and normal users don't have a chance. It is rapidly getting out of control as websites are turning into marketing-spree TV-like presentations. (And things like "noscript" don't even begin to address what I am talking about.)
Perhaps the biggest impact on society would be if immortality could be achieved (in physical body), the only death would be from severe accident (or incurable disease, which we assume is mostly done away with also at that point). Thus, as long as we are stuck on this planet, having children would have to be severely regulated... to the point that almost nobody should be allowed to have any.
I don't think that is going to be easy for people. Plus, if you live for many hundreds of years, the chances of "accidental" birth are significant, even with birth control... to the point of sterilization being required.
None of them are joke (with the Fire being the obvious oddball in the list). I HAVE a Xoom, and it is wonderful. Stable, easy to use, feature packed, great build. I like it a lot. Every one you just named is a "real" Android tablet, shipping with Honeycomb and upgraded to ICS. The Xoom is now even on Jellybean. Sounds like you have not used one before. These are not like the low-end "joke" Android tablets that came before.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like it still can't set clock, but can alert when time drift is too far. Could be useful. Thanks
I always keep my previous Android as not only an emergency spare, but use it in a dock in the bedroom as an alarm clock and weather station.
The only thing annoying is that you can't use NTP with it, unless you are rooted... so since there is no cell connection, time will drift.
Maybe that is a good thing...
You don't NEED a special number for everyone, you just need to test mental/physical function, not blood alcohol. For example, I have seen portable machines that can measure reaction time. With proper studies, you can determine a reasonable reaction time threshold for what is not dangerous and use THAT instead.
Blood alcohol limits are pretty much nonsense. There are TONS of factors that will affect how intoxicated or not a driver is under the influence of the drug: How quickly they drank, what they ate, how accustomed to the drug are they, how much they weigh, genetics, mental state, what other chemicals have they ingested and how much/when, how tired they are, etc.
It is just crazy to think that anyone can draw a line in the sand and declare that some magic value separates "intoxicated" from "non-intoxicated". It really shouldn't matter WHAT substance was ingested, or how much, or even if anything was. What matters is mental ability, reaction time, motor control, etc. Those can also be tested (and even objectively) and will reveal a whole lot more about how fit someone is to be driving.
Example- which would you rather be surrounded by on the road: some 300 pound males who drink daily for years and have a blood alcohol of 0.8 but is otherwise well rested, generally a good driver, and taking no other drugs or medications -or- some a group of people that were already poor drivers, have colds, are extremely tired, and have taken a bunch of cough meds and antihistamines?
>"new study, which finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers who are nearly as prone to crash with or without the device."
That partially doesn't surprise me. Typically, the same people that would allow themselves to be distracted by a phone or texting are going to be the same people that will allow themselves to be distracted by the radio, GPS, passenger, makeup, food, random thoughts, whatever. Conversely, there are people who tend to not allow distractions or are better able to ignore or cope with them. They might RELUCTANTLY use a phone while driving but don't allow the phone to be the primary focus and are FAR less distracted than others.
Just my observation, but it certainly looks like younger generations are growing up with less and less ability to focus, almost like ADD is rampant. Could be a side effect of having instant everything in their life and have no tolerance for having to work at something, concentrate on something, or be "disconnected" from others.
All that aside, I am not sure the methodology of the cited study is very scientific. For example- just ASKING people how often they use a phone while driving- yeah, that will be accurate. Anyway, there is no simple solution to the problem of distracted driving. Just banning phone use is not the answer. I don't know what the answer is, or if there is one... but it is certainly not going to be one thing.
More than they "should" be paying? How much more than OEM's "should" individuals building their own computer have to pay for MS-Windows? Why should they have to pay more at all?
If you buy the OEM license from the same vendor and at the same time you are buying the major parts for a machine you are building, I believe that is perfectly within the terms of at least the MS-Windows XP OEM license (I read it).
I would not block any ads at all if they were static images. But they almost never are. And I CAN NOT STAND trying to look at the screen or read something while there is ANY type of movement or animation at the same time. It is just too distracting. So, greed has done them in.
I won't even mention crap like hyper mouse-overs, SOUND, and other extremely annoying "features" because just the animation is enough.
Agreed. We see VNC port probing all the time. This is why we do not leave the server code running (as a service). If someone needs remote assistance, they launch the vnc server and it will wait for about 30 seconds for a connection before it gives up and dies.
Parent is over-rated. Exactly how is VNC "notoriously insecure"? Because it is not encrypted? Do you really think someone is going to intercept the screen drawing compressed bitmap traffic during some ad-hoc session? And what exactly will they get? A temporary visual of someone's screen?
Security really depends on how it is all implemented. I typically set it up so the person on the other end has to launch the VNC server, it has a strong password (which is not the same as any user), and it will only allow a connection for about 30 seconds before closing down.
Um, yeah, whatever you say, AC.
Women trick men into having children without men's consent ALL THE TIME, throughout history.
I think there is a smaller risk of men trying to trick or just lie to women about being "on the pill." There are two main motivations for women to lie about being on the pill- to try to get pregnant without permission, or to avoid the use of condoms because either she doesn't like them or she knows/believes he doesn't. For men, usually only the latter would apply.
As far as having more options that do not address STD's- yes, it is a good idea. More options are ALWAYS better. There probably aren't going to BE any more options that can block STD's AND pregnancy- only condoms (or abstinence).
+1 on your post. It is just as important for men to have control over reproduction- modern society demands they are 50% liable for children (with which I do agree).
I would only add that there should also be no financial rewards to women having children, making sure it is the CHILDREN that are wanted, not the money from the government (yes, this is a big problem with certain socioeconomic populations).
Yeah, right :)
We only wish that were true!
It is obviously speculation and I didn't claim otherwise. But if you think it is wrong, you are welcome to provide a counter speculation or perhaps even a "source".
Indeed there are legit uses for torrents. But if you add it all up, I bet 99.5+% of torrent traffic is the [illegal] exchange of copyrighted, commercial video, music, and software (and in that order, by volume).
Exactly. I was going to post the exact same thing. Too bad I don't have mod points right now.
I find it very ironic that BitTorrent Inc wants to make money using ads off essentially being an illegal distributor of mostly copyrighted content to those mostly illegally downloading copyrighted content, much of which are shows in which ads have been stripped out of them.
Quasar Accounting and Point of Sale System: http://linuxcanada.com/
We have been using it to run a gift shop for many years (in USA), including ordering, invoicing, inventory management, accounting, sales, and the register.... and all under Linux.
It is not free, but it is multiplatform, GUI, affordable, and source is available. It used to be mostly open source, but they couldn't make the model work.
Well, they put Play Store on the way over-priced "Google Q"... and that is a "set top/desktop" Android device...
But isn't DRM expected on the Ouya? Would rooting break that and prevent use of the Ouya marketplace? Won't rooting throw away the warranty and support like it does with pretty much all other Android devices? If it is easy to add Google Play on the device, then why doesn't it just come with it?
If it had access to Google Play Store *AND* another market for even more souped-up games (or even some exclusive stuff) it would be irresistible. But from everything I have seen/heard so far, it will probably be limited to some proprietary marketplace with much less selection and potentially much higher priced stuff.
You might ask what is the point for full Google Play Store access? These:
1) There are countless thousands of games, right off the bat
2) There are countless thousands of LOW PRICED games
3) There are many thousands of FREE games
4) Anything YOU ALREADY PAID FOR on Play will run on the Ouya too
5) You might want access to some apps that are not games
6) You might want to do all this in the comfort of your chair, using a great controller, a great sound system, and a great display
Without full Google Play Store (or maybe even Amazon Marketplace) support, I don't expect this thing to be anywhere NEAR as attractive as it would be with it.
Also quite possible it won't have analog sound out, making it not possible (or difficult and expensive) to connect many people's audio/visual systems.
But there are more problems than just "resources". Unless they can totally change human nature- we also need *SPACE* to prevent conflict. Personally, I also need QUIET!
Compared to other OPEN SOURCE, MULTIPLATFORM browsers (to me, there is no point in comparing to IE, which is neither open nor multiplatform). Firefox is-
Most annoying:
* Trying to hide everything all the time.
* Adding unnecessary crap all the time. Things that should be in addons. Example- the annoying new "blank page" helper. Goes completely against the foundations of Firefox.
* Changing long-held defaults. For example, turning on smooth scrolling, changing to "tabs on top". STOP TRYING TO LOOK LIKE CHROME.
* Still using too much memory. I know there are studies that show it is both less and that it is more than other browsers, but damn it still seems like a lot.
Most gratifying:
* Most like what I am used to.
* Less likely to have spyware/trackware and Google hooks in it.
* About:config has LOTS of options. I like having options (although more stuff should be in Preferences).
* Best Addon environment, period.
Most important feature request:
* Give users intelligent control over javascript to lessen or prevent animation and tight-loops. Sites have already started to destroy sane browsing behavior, put up lots of distracting s*** on the screen constantly, and eat up tons of CPU and battery. No addon is really able to address this, unless you spent forever trying to tweak for each site (and constantly update it)- and normal users don't have a chance. It is rapidly getting out of control as websites are turning into marketing-spree TV-like presentations. (And things like "noscript" don't even begin to address what I am talking about.)
Perhaps the biggest impact on society would be if immortality could be achieved (in physical body), the only death would be from severe accident (or incurable disease, which we assume is mostly done away with also at that point). Thus, as long as we are stuck on this planet, having children would have to be severely regulated... to the point that almost nobody should be allowed to have any.
I don't think that is going to be easy for people. Plus, if you live for many hundreds of years, the chances of "accidental" birth are significant, even with birth control... to the point of sterilization being required.
None of them are joke (with the Fire being the obvious oddball in the list). I HAVE a Xoom, and it is wonderful. Stable, easy to use, feature packed, great build. I like it a lot. Every one you just named is a "real" Android tablet, shipping with Honeycomb and upgraded to ICS. The Xoom is now even on Jellybean. Sounds like you have not used one before. These are not like the low-end "joke" Android tablets that came before.